University of Iowa
September 24, 2002
– 4:45 PM
Dodge Room, 256 IMU
Alvarez, S. Armstrong, Z. Ballas, C. Berman, J. Cowdery, M. Deem, D. DeJong, K.
Diffley, C. Dungy, S. Franklin, C. Green, G. Hamot, R. Herman, J. Hochstrasser,
E. Irish, J. Jew, W. Johnson, R. LeBlond, P. Lloyd, C. Lynch, M. Maktabi, U.
Mallik, T. Mangum, K. Marra, R. Miller, S. Moorhead, J. Moyers, P. Muhly, B.
Muller, T. O’Dorisio, L. Oakes, H. Paarsch, J. Polumbaum, R. Randell, M. Reno,
J. Ringen, P. Rubenstein, T. Schmidt, K. Southard, K. Tachau, T. Ton-That, R.
Valentine, C. Wanat, R. Weir, J. Westefeld, D. Whitaker, J. Woodhead
K. Abdel, J. Altman, D. Brown, P. Chang, E. Dove, B. Fallon, A. Hansen,
R. Hegeman, S. Kurtz, A. McCarthy, B. Phillips, D. Quinn, R. Slayton, L.
Snetselaar, P. Weller, H. Winfield
T. Boles, C. Creekmur, L. Dusdieker, P. Heidger, S. Stromquist
Senate Officers in Attendance:
J. Cox, President; M. Raymond, Vice President; C. Porter, Secretary;
Amitava Bhattacharjee, Past President
Boyd (President), Phil Davidson (Daily Iowan), Tom Walsh (Iowa City Gazette),
Sam Becker (Campus Campaign), Heather Woodward (Press Citizen), Jon Whitmore
(Office of the Provost), Chris Squier (Office of the Provost), Irwin Levin (ADT
Committee), Della McGrath (UI Foundation), Lola Lopes (Office of the Provost),
Alvin Snider (English), Lee Anna Clark (Office of the Provost), Charlie Drum
(University Relations), Julie Thatcher (Faculty Senate Office)
Call to Order
meeting was called to order by University of Iowa Faculty Senate President Jeff
Cox at 3:32 PM.
Minutes – Faculty Senate, April 30, 2002 (Attachment 1)
Maktabi moved the following, which was seconded.
To approve the minutes. Passed
by unanimous vote.
Approval of Recommended Replacements (Attachment 2)
Mangum moved and the motion was seconded to approve the Senate and Council
replacements as proposed by the Elections Committee in Attachment 2.
Prof. Raymond moved and Prof. Tachau seconded the recommendations of the
Committee on Committees for committee replacements as recommended in Attachment
2. The vote for both sets of
replacements was unanimous.
Report of the Capital Campaign (Sam Becker)
Becker, Emeritus Professor of Communication Studies, reported to the Senate on
the largest capital campaign in the history of the University of Iowa.
He identified the campaign as being the largest not only in the amount of
money that is intended to be raised but also in the breadth of activities that
will be funded by participant giving. Such
activities will include a specific endowment for staff development; monies
intended for restoration of the Old Capital and also for campus beautification
projects as three examples. By
meeting with the Senate, Emeritus Prof. Becker is continuing his attempt to
speak to every leadership group on the University of Iowa campus.
It is his intent that these discussions serve to encourage all campus
constituents to contribute to this important campaign.
The campaign has identified a $25 million fund raising goal for
contributions from faculty and staff. One
hundred percent participation is his goal in order to show our deep and abiding
commitment to our great university to our external constituencies.
All pledges, no matter how large or small, will help contribute to this
100% goal. Three ways of giving
were highlighted: 1) contributions
to one’s own unit; 2) contributions to university programs as exemplified by
support for KSUI, Hancher Auditorium and its programs or the campus
beautification project; 3) contributions to the staff development campaign that
might be made by either faculty or staff in the name of particular staff
members. The campaign began in 1999
and will continue to 2005. On
October 9, 2002 between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 PM there will be a kickoff
for the Campus Campaign for Good.
IOWA! The Campaign to
Advance Our Great University. Attendees
will have the opportunity to sign up to win various door prizes which will
include, among others, one year of free on-campus parking, tickets for two to
the madrigal dinner and seats for two in Bump Elliott’s Kinnick Stadium press
box for the Iowa vs. Northwestern football game.
Report of the Faculty Senate President (Jeff Cox)
President Cox began his remarks with an announcement that the proceeds
from the faculty bake sale of last spring were able to support two $410
scholarships for two students. Prof.
Maktabi asked whether the bake sale is intended to be a yearly event. President Cox responded that it certainly could be but at
present there were no plans for a second bake sale.
these opening comments the President gave his report to the Senate.
He recounted for the committee the many activities in which he and the
Faculty Senate officers, Profs. Bhattacharjee, Raymond and Porter, have
participated since the last meeting of the Faculty Senate and Faculty Council in
the spring semester of 2002. He then paused to introduce University of Iowa Interim
President Willard “Sandy” Boyd. Professor
Cox reminded the Senate that it was Professor Boyd who made the original
suggestion to then President. Bowen that the faculty should create a Senate body
whose core values would be exemplified by shared governance and a commitment to
due process and to tenure.
reviewed for the Faculty Senate that the Manual of Procedure mandates that a
presidential search shall involve faculty consultation.
Over the course of the summer of 2002 the President of the Board of
Regents, Owen Newlin was in close consultation with Pat Cane, former chair of
the Committee on the Selection of Central Academic Officials, and Senate
President Jeff Cox regarding the selection of the chair of the Search Committee.
Jonathan Carlson, Professor of Law was selected for this duty. Regent Newlin consulted extensively with the Senate
leadership in addition to the chair of the Search Committee and the Committee
for the Selection of Central Academic Officials on the composition of the rest
of the committee. At present the
committee is on target for its intended goal of recommending a handful of
candidates that might be brought to the University of Iowa campus for an onsite
interview process to the Board of Regents by the end of January 2003.
During the interval
between this and the last Senate and Council meetings the Senate leadership has
continued to have ongoing meetings with the president and the provost as well as
various vice presidents. Items
discussed during the meetings with the president have included:
1) ever increasing amounts of dollars being directed toward the athletic
program; 2) faculty concern over the welfare of our student body with respect to
the campus-wide problem of alcohol abuse and the secondary problem of the
highest arrest rates of our sister institutions for problems related to alcohol
and other drug consumption; 3) a discussion in conjunction with the Chief of the
Campus Police, Chuck Green, regarding alcohol-related arrest rates on our campus
and the relationship between the number of bars available to our student body
(52 in Iowa City) as compared to Iowa State University (14 in Ames); 4) the
intent of the interim university president to expand greatly visible university
outreach activities to let the citizens of Iowa know how important higher
education is to the welfare of this state. In meetings with the provost, the Faculty Senate leadership
discussion covered less broad issues and focused on deliberations over more
specific proposals. Examples of
such deliberations included: 1) the proposal for the Academy of Distinguished
Teachers; 2) the research-track faculty proposal which is currently receiving
much attention; 3) and the proposal to abolish the Senate Budget Committee in
order to create a university-wide committee composed of faculty and staff with
the chair appointed by the president of the university.
In addition, the Senate leadership has discussed proposals coming forward
for wider discussion at the Council and the Senate with the provost.
Examples of these discussions including the Dispute Resolution Committee
revision of the policy on harassment, revisions of policies suggested by the
Office of the Vice President for Research including conflict of commitment and
intellectual property and patents.
of the more important roles of the Faculty Senate is its participation in the
ongoing review of central academic officials.
Last year the offices of the Vice President for Finance and the Vice
President for Student Services were reviewed.
Those reports have previously been posted on the university web site
however they are difficult to find. As
such the Senate will be posting them on its own web site.
The review of the Office of the Provost has been completed but the
distribution of the report has been held up for technical reasons.
It, too, will soon be posted on the university web site with the intent
to post it on the Faculty Senate web page as well.
The review of the Office of the Vice President for Research has been
postponed and there is ongoing discussion with the Faculty Senate leadership
regarding its timing. For the first
time in the history of the university, there is an intent to review the Office
of the General Council. The
self-study of this vice presidential position is in progress and should be
followed within another academic year by the posting of a committee review
the conclusion of these remarks President Cox entertained questions from the
floor of the Senate. Prof.
Westefeld inquired whether there was an intent to funnel the discussions on the
athletic budget and student substance abuse and its attendant problems back to
the senate for additional open discussion.
President Cox indicated that there was strong sentiment among some
senators to recommend action on these issues.
At present there is no intent to add these topics as specific agenda
items. It is possible that they may
be introduced from the Senate floor. In
his remarks regarding the “arms race” in collegiate athletics, President Cox
identified nationwide concern over the escalating costs associated with these
programs as well as their commercialization.
There is ongoing Senate leadership participation in the CIC (Committee on
Institutional Cooperation), consisting of the Big 10 universities as well as the
University of Chicago and the University of Illinois at Chicago in discussions
on these very topics. The next
forum for discussion at the level of the CIC for the Faculty Senate leadership
will be in November of 2002.
Rubenstein questioned the lack of consistent information regarding the
research-track faculty proposal. Information
promulgated within his own College of Medicine, a principal in discussion of the
need for such a track, has suggested to the collegiate faculty that this
proposal has been shelved. Subsequent
to this recent discussion at the College of Medicine Executive Committee, the
proposal was reviewed in the Iowa City press.
In the absence of distribution of this proposal directly to the faculty
of the university, Prof. Rubenstein wondered how the Council could adequately
debate its merits or lack thereof. President
Cox responded that the proposal was given to the university provost last year
and that it is, indeed, a public document, which will be openly discussed at the
Council and Senate. Prof.
Rubenstein continued his questioning in regard to the wisdom of discussing such
a proposal with the press before the faculty of the university had an
opportunity to do likewise. President
Cox reiterated that the proposal is not a secret in its nature nor is it
confidential. Continuing a similar line of questioning Prof. Tachau
wondered about the propriety of discussing the report at Council since a large
proportion of the faculty that would be directly affected by this proposal
(College of Medicine faculty) had not been made aware of any of its details.
President Cox reminded the Senate that the proposal was a university-wide
policy and therefore needed full Council discussion, which would be forthcoming.
Immediate Past President Bhattacharjee reminded the Senate of the
historic-based need for the Faculty Council and Senate to proceed with
discussion as a matter of protocol. In
responding to a question by Prof. LeBlond about whether the actual research
faculty document is a report or a specific proposal, President Cox identified
its nature as more of the former rather than the latter.
It is a broad attempt to explain how it is the research-track faculty
might function. He reiterated that
it is not a College of Medicine-specific proposal.
President Cox further indicated that a campus-wide e-mail distribution
will be forthcoming to alert the university faculty of the existence of this
report and to direct them to a university web page where it might be found.
Provost Whitmore responded to a question from Prof. Berman who wished to
know who appointed the committee that wrote the research-track faculty report.
While the concept primarily derived from the Colleges of Medicine and
Engineering, the committee itself was appointed by joint efforts of Vice
President Skorton and Provost Whitmore and had campus-wide membership. The charge to the committee was to look at the concept of
having such positions and to make recommendations about whether or not the
proposal should be discussed more broadly.
The recommendation of the report is, indeed, to further consider this
proposal with additional, university-wide, study.
President Cox reminded the Senate, again, that the report is a public
document that directly affects faculty of the university and therefore needs
deliberation by the Faculty Senate officers, the Council of Deans and that it
needs discussion, by protocol, by the Faculty Council and subsequently by the
Faculty Senate. Prof. Tachau
endorsed this proposal but wondered whether the Council and Senate should seek
broader input from constituent groups prior to further discussion at its
meetings. In his concluding remarks
on this topic, President Cox reminded the senators that the Faculty Council
meetings are open to the public and should provide a forum for expanded faculty
input as Prof. Tachau wishes.
Report of the Presidential Search Committee (Jonathan Carlson)
of an unintended and unavoidable conflict, Prof. Carlson was unable to attend
the Senate meeting as he intended. He
provided a brief statement, which was read by President Cox.
The statement is provided as Attachment 3.
President Cox indicated that Prof. Carlson is more than willing to attend
future meetings as desired and as necessary.
Provost’s Annual Report to the Senate (Jon Whitmore)
Annual Report of the Provost is included as Attachment 4.
Following the delivery of his report, Provost Whitmore responded to a
series of questions. A senator asked for information regarding the positions of
the candidates for governor on increased funding for higher education as a
priority item. Provost Whitmore
responded that the university did not have specific information that would help
to answer this question. It is the
position of the Provost that the central university administration will work any
governor through the Board of Regents to push our local agenda in concert with
the collective agenda of the Regents.
Berman asked for an update on the Old Capital restoration.
The Provost responded that an agreement has been reached with a
contracting firm and that the campus should begin to see evidence of the
reconstruction of the dome in the near future.
Proposal for the Academy of Distinguished Teachers (Attachment 5)
Irwin Levin reported for Prof. Roberta Marvin, who was unable to attend the
Senate meeting. He briefly
identified the two components of the proposal as institutional recognition for
teaching and activities that will promote the dedication of financial resources
to support teaching activities. A
motion was made and seconded to approve the proposal, which received a unanimous
vote. Following this rapid approval
a series of modifications were proposed from the floor.
Prof. Polumbaum expressed her displeasure with the proposal for three
significant reasons. She believed
that the title sounded pompous and that its pomposity may not play well to
outside constituents. Furthermore
she believed that the current celebration of teaching on campus is more than
adequate and does not require the creation of an Academy of Distinguished
Teachers. In elaborating on this
concept she suggested that selection to such a body may provide potential for
division amongst the faculty, some of whom will not be elected to the academy,
but all of whom are engaged in significant teaching activities.
Furthermore because of the presence of a Center for Teaching and
established support of the Office of the Provost for teaching activities, the
goals of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers are currently being met.
In his response, Prof. Levin recognized that teaching is an integral part
of faculty life. He further
indicated that the Academy of Distinguished Teachers wished to create a
cross-campus forum for celebration of teaching in the form of an annual awards
dinner. Immediate Past President
Bhattacharjee identified the source of the name that has been proposed as having
been a meeting between the University of Iowa and University of Minnesota
Faculty Senate officers with the University of Minnesota provost and president.
An Academy of Distinguished Teachers had been established at the
University of Minnesota and the University of Iowa proposal was created using
the name they had chosen for their own academy.
Prof. Maktabi expressed his support for the proposal.
In his opinion it is based on a need for ongoing recognition of an
integral part of faculty life at a time when there is a significantly enhanced
emphasis on grant dollar generation. He
believes that the proposal clearly shows that University of Iowa faculty
leadership values teaching and that it also sends a clear message of the value
we place on this activity to the state of Iowa.
Prof. Randell asked about the funding source and amount of monies to be
committed to the Academy of Distinguished Teachers.
Provost Whitmore indicated that he intended to invest up to $50,000 in
activities supporting the activities of the academy. He envisioned incremental contributions over some time to
achieve this final goal. While
Prof. Berman agreed with the title she suggested that many of the needs for
teaching activities are more basic and include such mundane items as functional
blackboards and adequate erasers and chalk.
Prof. Tachau agreed that the title was appropriate and sees it as a
direct link to one of times greatest teachers, Aristotle and his academy.
She expressed concern that a negative faculty vote in support of the
creation of such an academy would send the wrong message to the state of Iowa.
Prof. Jew concurred and further elaborated that the importance of
recognition of our commitment to teaching could additionally be reflected in the
creation of a vice president for teaching.
Such an office could be a source of resources and could also advocate for
the kinds of needs that Prof. Berman indicated.
Prof. Mangum reminded the Senate that Lola Lopes currently holds the
office of associate provost for undergraduate education and as such oversees the
Council on Teaching as well as the nTitle and Twist programs and, as such,
serves the purpose proposed by Prof. Jew. Profs.
Lynch and LeBlond both supported the proposal.
Although they identified a lack of detail in its substance, they both
expressed great faith in the ability of a distinguished and creative group of
people to develop an academy that would be an important resource for the
university. Prof. Whitaker provided
a motion to reaffirm support of the prior vote.
Only three negative votes were identified and so the proposal to create
an Academy of Distinguished Teachers passed.
The University of Iowa Convocation will occur on October 1, 2002.
that time the Senate will be able to celebrate the results of their
deliberations in the presentation of the Awards for Faculty Excellence and the
The next University of Iowa Faculty Council meeting will be held on
October 1, 2002 at 3:30 PM in the Penn State Room at the IMU.
The next University of Iowa Faculty Senate meeting will be held on
October 15, in the Lucas Dodge Room at the IMU.
From the Floor
No additional items were identified by the Senate for discussion.
Following a motion by Prof. Whitaker and unanimous approval from the
floor, the University of Iowa Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:58 PM.
Secretary, University of Iowa Faculty Senate
Report of Presidential Search Committee Chair
summer the Board of Regents appointed a 26-member Presidential Search and Screen
Advisory Committee. The Board also
contracted with Korn/Ferry International, an executive search firm with
extensive experience in higher education, to provide assistance to the Committee
and the Board throughout the search process.
Committee has three main tasks: First, to develop as large and strong a pool of
candidates as possible, by conducting a broadly-based and wide-ranging search.
Second, to screen the applicant pool and identify a handful of the
strongest candidates for the position. Third,
to recommend at lest four finalists to the Board of Regents and to provide the
Board with a written evaluation of each finalist.
this point, the Committee has begun the process of assembling a candidate pool
and has developed criteria for evaluating the candidates.
The evaluative criteria proposed by the committee were approved by the
Board of Regents on September 19. We
are now turning our attention to the candidate pool.
Over the next 6-8 weeks we will be focused on expanding that pool and
evaluating the candidates.
Annual Address to
We are living in transitional times.
We are living in devastatingly difficult financial times.
The University of Iowa lost $65 million in state
appropriations in the past eighteen months.
The very quality of the University of Iowa, which has been
built up over more than 150 years, is being threatened by unprecedented
And yet, because of the collective goodwill and
extraordinary hard work of its faculty and staff, the University of Iowa has
much to be proud of.
You, the faculty, have found ways to shine a light through
the dark budget clouds that hang over our heads.
our enrollments have increased by nearly 600 students, and even though we have
100 less faculty and 215 less staff, this fall semester has gotten off to a
I will not
pretend that the quality of learning is as healthy as it was two years ago.
It is not.
of your sacrifices, our students have full course schedules, and you are
engaging them in vivid experiences in your classrooms on a daily basis.
Faculty are teaching more students.
Classes are larger.
The number of papers to grade and the number of students to
advise have increased.
Existing classrooms are bulging with
students—overflowing, in some cases.
Yet, in the short run, through heroic effort, the
University has found a way to cope.
What I worry about, now, is the long run.
This overcrowding is eroding the quality of education.
Of that I have no doubt.
And, the time for faculty to make new discoveries in the
laboratory, the library, and the rehearsal halls is being squeezed in harmful
While the quick fixes the
deans and department heads have
been asked to put into place this year will get us by in
the short run…..
…these fixes will not sustain the excellence of
educational quality, research outcomes, and service provision that have been
hallmarks of Iowa’s educational reputation throughout the nation.
We are known inside the state and outside for having
faculty who care deeply about quality teaching.
We are know as an institution that has done everything it
can to have our best faculty teaching undergraduates in the smallest classroom
We value discussion over lecturing to the masses.
We value active student learning over passive note taking.
We value sharing cutting-edge research with our
These things we value, however, are in great jeopardy.
This is why the centerpiece of the University’s
request for new funding from the state for the 2003-04 budget emphasizes two
things--salaries and faculty positions:
#1 IS FULL FUNDING OF SALARIES
only real competitive advantage any truly great University ever has is the
quality of its people—the quality of its faculty, its staff, and ultimately
the students they attract.
Why salaries first?
Because the University of Iowa must compete for faculty in
a national and international marketplace.
Our faculty salaries rank 7th out of 10 Big Ten
And we rank 9th out of 11 in our Board-approved
comparison group of peer institutions.
Neither 7th place or 9th place is
We must hire and retain the best faculty, graduate
assistants, and support staff.
We simply must.
People come first.
So, we put salary support first.
Our #2 budget request from additional state support is
RESTORING FACULTY POSITIONS lost in four budget cuts over the past eighteen
Simply put, we cannot sustain the quality of undergraduate
and graduate education--the centerpieces of this great University--without more
faculty than we have now.
Budget reductions have sliced through the University’s
skin and bone and have reached our vital organs.
We cannot sustain the historical quality of education that
Iowa’s students demand and deserve without additional faculty in our
RESTORING LOST FACULTY LINES is the university’s second priority.
When we receive additional money from the state, these two
items—faculty and staff salaries and restoring faculty lines—will get our
Let me add
one more ominous note about faculty salaries.
We have had
to make a double request for salary funding for next year.
The university raised salaries on a merit basis
approximately 3.76% this current year.
But the partial funding that the state provided for our
current raises (2.2%) was provided on a one-year-only basis.
required the University and the Regents to ask for two doses of salary increase
for the coming year.
First we must get the 2.2% provided by the state for this
year’s salaries restored on an ongoing basis.
This restoration would amount
to $12 million.
The second part of the salary request, then, is for the
state to provide new, ongoing funding so that we can provide merit raises
for next year—2003-04.
A double hit of salary funding in a single year is
formidable, but it must be done if Iowa is to maintain the quality of its higher
In reading David McCollough’s book, JOHN ADAMS,
this summer, I was, time and time again, struck by the clarity and depth of
insight the founding fathers of this nation had concerning the value of
education and the long-term role it would play in building a vibrant and
free nation, and, by implication, healthy and productive states.
was an advocate for public access to education, not just for the rich, but for
all classes of citizens.
In 1776 he wrote:
“Laws for the liberal education of youth,
especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful
that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought
extravagant (pg. 103).
repeat that last phrase: “…no expense for [education] would be thought
Iowa and its government officials must realize that
public support for higher education is not an expense, nor is it an
extravagance; it is a necessary investment in the future well-being of this
Despite all that I have said so far, I remain
optimistic about the future.
It was Alfred North Whitehead who wrote, “The task of the
university is the creation of the future….”
current difficulties, we cannot let this sacred trust,
CREATING THE FUTURE, go by the wayside.
Despite diminishing state support, the University of Iowa
cannot and will not stand still.
The University provided well-deserved salary raises
We opened a stunning new Biomedical Research and
A new Honors
building is rising out of the ground.
We dug the first symbolic footings for a new
Journalism and classroom building just last week.
And a groundbreaking ceremony for the much
anticipated Art and Art History building is scheduled for the very near future.
All is not
The University celebrated the acquisition of the 4
millionth volume by our libraries this past spring.
$500 thousand was added to the library acquisitions budget—keeping alive our
shared belief that our knowledge infrastructure must be nurtured, even in hard
University Foundation’s aggressive campaign to raise $850 million has already
realized $545 million in contributions and pledges.
alumni and friends are doing their part to advance the University.
And, through the work of Vice President Skorton and
his staff and you the faculty, the University saw a breathtaking gain in
sponsored research awards for 2002—an astonishing 23% increase for a total of
All is not bleak.
Six new faculty lines were made available to support new
faculty hires for interdisciplinary research and teaching and for diversifying
the faculty with international expertise.
lines are planned for next year.
tuition dollars provided 10 new faculty positions to the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences this year.
Applications to the University were up 10.5% for
freshman and 15% for graduate students.
Enrollments are up on campus by nearly 600 students.
Diversity of the student body and the faculty ranks
has also made modest, but positive, gains.
All is not bleak for the University of Iowa’s future.
Two of the bright spots for this current year are our
interim president Willard (Sandy) Boyd and his wonderful wife, Susan.
We could not ask for two more skillful and
experienced advocates for the University of Iowa.
President Boyd knows only too well how important
state funding is to the health and well being of this University.
He has plans, already underway, to develop stronger
outreach efforts to the citizens of the state.
You will hear more about these plans directly from
One of the
traditional strengths of the University of Iowa has been the humanities.
Nationally, there exists a concern that the humanities have
been relegated to a back burner in higher education’s institutional
priorities, pushed aside by a massive infusion of grant funding for the life and
health sciences and for digital technology.
concern for the wellbeing of the humanities exists on this campus, especially in
light of the recent budget cuts and loss of faculty lines.
I plan to
host a series of discussions on the future of the humanities at Iowa throughout
the year (two discussions already took place this summer).
the outcome of these discussions will be a blueprint for reinvigorating the humanities
I would like Iowa’s discussions to be informed by a
series of recommendations on the humanities that will be promulgated by the
Association of American Universities (the AAU) this fall.
A year ago,
the AAU appointed an ad hoc task force to study the state of the humanities and
to make recommendations about how this core discipline might be advanced at
AAU’s 63 elite research universities over the coming years.
I serve on AAU’s humanities task force and I plan to use
its recommendations as a touchstone for discussions on this campus concerning
how a brighter future might be fashioned.
in the humanities is a core element of this University’s past and of it
help of the faculty, we will draft a blueprint, which can then be considered
early in the tenure of our new president.
I would like to close by thanking you, the faculty, for
allowing me the privilege of serving as your provost for the past six years.
It has been a daily learning experience, and an
This is a first
class university, and you are a dedicated faculty—
inquisitive researchers, scholars, and artists,
generous providers of service to the people of Iowa, the nation, and around the
(Parenthetically, a few of your colleagues are even reaching into far outer space.)
I would like to take this opportunity to thank
personally Amitava Bhattacharjee for the quality of his service as president of
the senate last year.
It was top notch in my book.
And I look forward to working with your talented new Senate
President, Jeff Cox, as we continue the tradition of shared governance that has
made this University everything that it is today--
--a very distinctive place to teach and learn.